RULE 87

ACTIONS BY AND AGAINST THE EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS

SEC. 1. Actions which may and which may not be brought against executor or administrator. —

No action upon a claim for the recovery

of money or debt or interest thereon

shall be commenced against the executor or administrator;

but to recover real or personal property, or an interest therein,

from the estate, or to enforce a lien thereon,

and actions to recover damages

for an injury to person or property, real or personal,

may be commenced against him.

Sec. 1: Actions which may and which may not be brought against executor or administrator.

❌ Prohibited Actions:

No action for recovery of money, debt, or interest can be commenced against an executor or administrator.

✅ Permitted Actions:

Actions to recover real or personal property or an interest therein from the estate.
Actions to enforce a lien on estate property.
Actions for damages due to injury to person or property (real or personal).

SEC. 2. Executor or administrator may bring or defend actions which survive.

For the recovery or protection

of the property or rights of the deceased,

an executor or administrator may bring or defend,

in the right of the deceased, actions for causes which survive.

Sec. 2. Executor or administrator may bring or defend actions which survive

The executor or administrator may bring or defend actions on behalf of the deceased.
These actions must be for the recovery or protection of the property or rights of the deceased.

To recall, money claims should be filed against the decedent's estate; they may not be pursued against the executor or administrator.
Only the following actions may be commenced against the executor or administrator:

Recovery of real or personal property or an interest therein;
Enforcement of a lien on real or personal property; and
Recovery of damages for an injury to person, property, whether real or personal.

As a rule of thumb, actions which survive the decedent's death should be made against the executor or administrator.
Conversely, actions that do not survive must be claimed against the estate.
Moreover, the term "claims" required to be presented against a decedent's estate is generally construed to mean debts or demands of a pecuniary nature which could have been enforced against the deceased in his lifetime or liability contracted by the deceased before his death. The court charged with the settlement of the estate is bound to protect the estate from any disbursements based on claims not chargeable to the estate.
Actions to recover real or personal property, or an interest therein, survive the decedent's death.

Thus, an action for quieting of title with damages and an action for recovery of personal property such as a motor vehicle are not extinguished by the death of a party.

Likewise, the executor or administrator may sue upon any cause of action which accrued to the decedent during his lifetime.

Any action affecting the property rights of a deceased, which may be brought by or against him if he were alive, may be instituted and prosecuted by or against the administrator unless, by its very nature, it cannot survive because death extinguishes such right.

SEC. 3. Heir may not sue until share assigned.

When an executor or administrator

is appointed and assumes the trust,

no action to recover the title or possession of lands,

or for damages done to such lands,

shall be maintained against him by an heir or devisee

until there is an order of the court

assigning such lands to such heir or devisee

or until the time allowed for paying debts has expired.

Before distribution is made or before any residue is known,

the heirs and devisees have no cause of action

against the administrator for recovery of property

left by the deceased.

Sec. 3. Heir may not sue until share assigned.

Heirs or devisees cannot sue for title, possession, or damages related to land.
They must wait until:

The court assigns the land to them, or
The time allowed for debt payments has expired.

When heirs may file an action in court

The general rule is that heirs have no legal standing to sue for the recovery or protection of the property rights of the deceased. The exceptions to the rule are as follows:

Pending the filing of administration proceedings;
Administration proceedings have already been commenced, but an administrator has not yet been appointed;
The executor or administrator is unwilling or refuses to bring suit;
The executor or administrator is alleged to have participated in the act complained of and he is made a party defendant.

Vda. de Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47027, January 27, 1989:

The heirs were allowed to file a petition for correction of clerical errors in the description of the property in the project of partition after it was approved by the probate court.

The heir is not entirely precluded from suing the executor or administrator. However, the suit may only prosper if:

There is an order of the court assigning the property to such heir; or
The time allowed for the payment of a debt has expired.

Simply put, the partition and delivery of his corresponding share must precede the suit filed by the heir.
The rationale for the foregoing rule was aptly explained by Chief Justice Moran, to wit:

"An executor or administrator who assumes the trust takes possession of the property left by the decedent for the purpose of paying debts. While his debts are undetermined and unpaid, no residue may be settled for distribution among the heirs and devisees. Consequently, before distribution is made, or before any residue is known, the heirs or devisees have no cause of action against the executor or administrator for recovery of the property left by the deceased."

SEC. 4. Executor or Administrator May Compound with Debtor.

Within the approval of the court,

an executor or administrator may compound

with the debtor of the deceased for a debt due

and may give a discharge of such debt

on receiving a just dividend of the estate of the debtor.

Sec. 4: Executor or administrator may compromise with debtor

With court approval, an executor or administrator may settle a debt with a debtor of the deceased.
A discharge of the debt may be granted if a just dividend of the debtor’s estate is received.
Section 4 empowers the executor or administrator to compromise with the decedent's debtor.

SEC. 5. Mortgage due estate may be foreclosed.

A mortgage belonging to the estate of a deceased person,

as mortgagee or assignee of the right of a mortgage,

may be foreclosed by the executor or administrator.

Sec. 5: Mortgage due estate may be foreclosed.

The executor or administrator may foreclose a mortgage that belongs to the deceased’s estate.
Applies when the deceased was:

the mortgagee or
assignee of the mortgage.

As earlier discussed, the rule is that the executor or administrator is not chargeable for the loss sustained by the estate. Nevertheless, if, through his negligence, the estate sustains a loss due to his failure to foreclose or delay until the mortgaged property has depreciated such that the full amount of the debt cannot be recovered, the executor or administrator shall bear the loss.

The executor or administrator must show to the satisfaction of the court the reason for the failure to foreclose and the loss resulting to the estate.

Assuming that the executor or testator successfully forecloses the mortgaged property, the distribution of the proceeds shall be determined by the heirs among themselves. Such issue cannot be litigated or determined in the foreclosure case unless all the heirs are made parties to the said proceeding.

SEC. 6. Proceedings when property concealed, wmbezzled, or fraudulently conveyed.

If an executor or administrator,

heir, legatee, creditor, or other individual interested

in the estate of the deceased

complains to the court having jurisdiction of the estate

that a person is suspected

of having concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away

any of the money, goods, or chattels of the deceased,

or that such person has in his possession

or has knowledge of any deed,

conveyance, bond, contract, or other writing

which contains evidence of or tends to disclose

the right, title, interest, or claim of the deceased,

the court may cite such suspected person to appear before it

and may examine him on oath on the matter of such complaint.

If the person so cited refuses to appear or to answer

on such examination or such interrogatories as are put to him,

the court may punish him for contempt

and may commit him to prison until he submits

to the order of the court.

The interrogatories put to any such person,

and his answers thereto,

shall be in writing and shall be filed in the clerk's office.

Sec. 6: Proceedings when property concealed, wmbezzled, or fraudulently conveyed

If an executor, administrator, heir, legatee, creditor, or interested person suspects that someone has:

Concealed, embezzled, or wrongfully conveyed the money, goods, or chattels of the deceased.
Possesses or has knowledge of documents (deed, contract, etc.) related to the deceased’s rights, title, or claims.

The court may cite the suspected person to appear and testify under oath.
If the cited person refuses to appear or answer, the court may:

Punish for contempt.
Commit the person to prison until they comply.

The person’s interrogatories and answers must be in writing and filed in the clerk’s office.

When the property of the decedent is concealed, embezzled, or fraudulently conveyed, the interested party must bring it to the court's attention, which shall then cite the person suspected to appear in court.
If the person cited refuses, the court may punish him for contempt and order his commitment to prison until he submits to the court's order.
Section 6 contemplates two situations:

When the executor or administrator, heir, legatee, creditor, or other individual interested in the estate of the deceased complains to the court having jurisdiction of the estate that a person is suspected of having concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away any of the money, goods, or chattels of the deceased; or
When such person has in his possession or has knowledge of any deed, conveyance, bond, contract, or other writing which contains evidence of or tends to disclose the right, title, interest, or claim of the deceased.

This section only provides a proceeding for examining persons:

suspected of having concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away property of the deceased or
withholding information of documentary evidence tending to disclose rights or claims of the deceased to such property or to disclose the possession of his last will and testament.

The purpose of the proceeding is to elicit evidence, and the section does not, in terms, authorize the court to enforce delivery of possession of the things involved.
To obtain the possession, recourse must therefore generally be had to an ordinary action.

SEC. 7. Person entrusted with estate compelled to render account.

The court, on complaint of an executor or administrator,

may cite a person entrusted by an executor or administrator

with any part of the estate of the deceased

to appear before it and may require such person

to render a full account, on oath,

of the money, goods, chattels, bonds, accounts,

or other papers belonging to such estate

as came to his possession in trust

for such executor or administrator,

and of his proceedings thereon.

If the person so cited refuses to appear

to render such account,

the court may punish him for contempt

as having disobeyed a lawful order of the court.

Sec. 7: Person entrusted with estate compelled to render account.

If a person was entrusted by an executor or administrator with any part of the estate, the court may:

Cite them to appear before the court.
Require them to render a full account (under oath) of any money, goods, chattels, bonds, or papers they held in trust.

If the person refuses to appear or account, the court may:

Punish for contempt for disobeying a lawful court order.

SEC. 8. Embezzlement before letters issued.

If a person, before the granting

of letters testamentary or of administration

on the estate of the deceased,

embezzles or alienates any

of the money, goods, chattels, or effects of such deceased,

such person shall be liable to an action

in favor of the executor or administrator of the estate

for double the value of the property

sold, embezzled, or alienated,

to be recovered for the benefit of such estate.

Sec. 8: Embezzlement before letters issued

If a person embezzles or alienates (transfers) the deceased’s money, goods, or effects before an executor or administrator is appointed, they are liable.
The executor or administrator may file an action for double the value of the embezzled or alienated property.
The amount recovered is for the benefit of the estate.

If, before the grant of letters testamentary or of administration, a person embezzles or alienates money or property of the deceased, such person shall be liable to an action in favor of the executor or administrator for double the value of the property sold, embezzled, or alienated. This is the “double value rule.”

SEC. 9. Property fraudulently conveyed by deceased may be recovered. When executor or administrator must bring action

When there is a deficiency of assets

in the hands of an executor or administrator

for the payment of debts and expenses of administration,

and the deceased in his lifetime had conveyed

real or personal property, or a right or interest therein,

or a debt or credit,

with intent to defraud his creditors

or to avoid any right, debt, or duty;

or had so conveyed such

property, right, interest, debt, or credit

that by law the conveyance would be void

as against his creditors,

and the subject of the attempted conveyance

would be liable to attachment by any of them in his lifetime,

the executor or administrator may commence and prosecute

to final judgment an action for the recovery of such

property, right, interest, debt, or credit

for the benefit of the creditors.

However, he shall not be bound

to commence the action

unless upon application of the creditors of the deceased,

nor unless the creditors making the application

pay such part of the costs and expenses,

or give security therefor to the executor or administrator,

as the court deems equitable.

Sec. 9: Property fraudulently conveyed by deceased may be recovered. When executor or administrator must bring action

If assets are insufficient to pay debts and administration expenses, the executor or administrator may recover property that the deceased fraudulently conveyed during their lifetime.
The executor or administrator may file an action to recover the property for the creditors' benefit.
However, they are not required to file the action unless:

Creditors request the action.
Creditors pay part of the costs or provide security for expenses as the court deems fair.

An executor or administrator may commence and prosecute to final judgment an action for the recovery of property, right, interest, debts, or credit for the benefit of creditors when the following circumstances concur:

The deceased in his lifetime had conveyed real or personal property, a right or interest therein, or a debt or credit;
Such conveyance was:

Made with intent to defraud his creditors;
Made to avoid any right, debt, or duty; or
The subject of the attempted conveyance would be liable to attachment by any of them in his lifetime; and

There is a deficiency of assets in the hands of an executor or administrator for the payment of debts and expenses of administration.

The executor or administrator is not bound to commence the action unless the creditors apply to the court and agree to pay such part of the costs and expenses or provide security as the court deems equitable.

SEC. 10. When creditor may bring action. Lien for costs.

When there is such a deficiency of assets,

and the deceased in his lifetime had made or attempted

such a conveyance as stated in the last preceding section,

and the executor or administrator has not commenced

the action therein provided for,

any creditor of the estate may,

with the permission of the court,

commence and prosecute to final judgment,

in the name of the executor or administrator,

a like action for the recovery of the subject

of the conveyance or attempted conveyance

for the benefit of the creditors.

However, the action shall not be commenced

until the creditor has filed in court a bond

executed to the executor or administrator,

in an amount approved by the judge,

conditioned to indemnify the executor or administrator

against the costs and expenses incurred

by reason of such action.

Such creditor shall have a lien upon any judgment

recovered by him in the action for such costs

and other expenses incurred therein

as the court deems equitable.

Where the conveyance or attempted conveyance

had been made by the deceased in his lifetime

in favor of the executor or administrator,

the action which a creditor may bring

shall be in the name of all the creditors,

and permission of the court and the filing of a bond,

as above prescribed, are not necessary.

Sec. 10: When a Creditor May Bring an Action

If the executor or administrator fails to bring the action, a creditor may do so with court permission.
The action is filed in the name of the executor or administrator for the creditors' benefit.
Before filing, the creditor must:

Submit a bond to indemnify the executor/administrator for any costs incurred.
The bond amount must be approved by the judge.
The creditor has a lien on any judgment recovered for costs and expenses incurred.

Exception: If the fraudulent conveyance was made in favor of the executor or administrator, any creditor may file the action on behalf of all creditors without court permission or a bond.

A creditor may bring an action in the name of the executor or administrator for the recovery of property fraudulently conveyed by the deceased upon concurrence of the following conditions:

There is a deficiency of assets;
The deceased in his lifetime had made or attempted such a conveyance with intent to defraud creditors or to avoid any right, debt, or duty (as stated in Section 9);
The executor or administrator has not commenced the action provided in Section 9; and
The creditor has filed a bond executed to the executor or administrator in an amount approved by the judge, conditioned to indemnify the executor or administrator against the costs and expenses incurred by reason of such action.

If the creditor is successful, he shall have a lien upon any judgment recovered by him for reasonable costs and expenses.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, when the conveyance or its attempt made by the decedent during his lifetime is in favor of the executor or administrator, the action commenced shall be in the name of all the creditors. Corollarily, the court’s permission and the filing of a bond are dispensed with.
When the demand is in favor of the administrator and the party against whom it is enforced is a third party, not under the court’s jurisdiction, the demand cannot be made by mere motion by the administrator but must be pursued through an independent action against the third person. For obvious reasons, the demand cannot be made through motion alone when third persons not under the jurisdiction of the court are involved.

Buan & Paras vs. Laya, et. al. (102 PHIL 682)

The heirs of Juan C. Laya filed a contingent claim for over P500,000 against the estate of deceased spouses Florencio and Rizalina Buan, based on a bus accident involving a Philippine Rabbit Bus they owned.

The accident, caused by the negligence of their driver, Ernesto Triguero, resulted in the death of Juan C. Laya and injuries to others.
Triguero was convicted of homicide and serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence, but the heirs of Laya reserved their civil action for damages.

A civil case for damages was later filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila against the estate administrator.

The CFI of Tarlac initially admitted the contingent claim but denied the request to set aside a portion of the estate for it.

The administrators opposed the claim, arguing it was not filed before the deaths of the spouses and was outside the period prescribed by Rule 89, Section 4 of the Rules of Court.
CFI Manila: Ruled that the civil action was premature since the criminal conviction was not yet final and ordered the petitioners to amend their complaint.
CFI Tarlac: reconsidered and dismissed the contingent claim, stating that the basis for admitting it had ceased to exist.
Whether a portion of the estate should be set aside to satisfy any potential damages that may be awarded in the civil case.
The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the contingent claim.

A contingent claim is one that depends on an uncertain future event (i.e., the outcome of the civil case).
The prematurity of the civil case in Manila does not justify dismissing the contingent claim in the estate proceedings.
The Rules of Court (Rule 87, Secs. 5 & 9) allow the filing of contingent claims in estate proceedings, and they remain valid until the underlying civil action is resolved.

Since the driver was already convicted of negligence, the deceased spouses, as his employers, may be held liable for damages under the doctrine of employers' liability.

The CFI of Tarlac should have set aside a portion of the estate to cover the potential damages.
The Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of the contingent claim and directed the CFI of Tarlac to fix an amount from the estate to cover any damages that may be awarded in the civil case.

Valera vs. Inserto (149 SCRA 533)

The intestate estate of deceased spouses Rafael Valera and Consolacion Sarrosa was under settlement, with Eumelia Cabado and Pompillo Valera appointed as administrators.
The heirs of their deceased daughter, Teresa Garin, claimed ownership of an 18-hectare fishpond, which the administrators sought to recover as part of the estate.

Probate Court: Ordered the return of the fishpond to the estate, ruling that an implied trust had been created under Articles 1453 and 1455 of the Civil Code.

The fishpond was originally leased by Rafael Valera from the government, then allegedly sold to Teresa Garin, but the sale was deemed fictitious as it was intended only for the support of her children.
The heirs of Teresa Garin later acquired the fishpond in their name, holding the Torrens title to the property.

Probate Court: Authorized execution pending appeal, leading to the physical turnover of the fishpond to the administrators.

Manuel Fabiana, the lessee of the fishpond under a contract with Jose Garin (Teresa’s husband), intervened but was dismissed on grounds of untimeliness and non-registration of the lease.
Fabiana and Jose Garin filed separate cases (G.R. No. 56504, G.R. Nos. 59867-68), arguing that the Probate Court had no jurisdiction to decide ownership.
Whether the Probate Court has jurisdiction to decide ownership of the fishpond and order its reconveyance to the estate.

The Probate Court exceeded its authority by making a determination on ownership. Its ruling was provisional and meant only for inclusion in the estate inventory. A separate action was required to resolve ownership.

Should the administrators have filed a separate action to recover possession of the fishpond from third-party claimants.

The estate administrators should have instituted a separate action to recover possession, given that a third party (the Garin heirs and their lessee) held the fishpond under a Torrens title.

Was the interference by another court (CFI, Branch I) valid in issuing a restraining order against the enforcement of the Probate Court’s decision.

The Court of Appeals properly ruled that the CFI, Branch I had jurisdiction to issue orders regarding possession in a separate action since the Probate Court’s decision on ownership was not conclusive.

G.R. No. 56504 (Fabiana’s case) was dismissed.
G.R. Nos. 59867-68 (estate administrators' appeal) were denied.
The Court of Appeals' decision was affirmed, ruling that the fishpond’s ownership must be determined in a proper civil action.
The temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court was lifted.

Search This Blog

sic itur ad astra

Special Rules and Proceedings: Rule 87